PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GLICERIO SALVACION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal, taken by defendant Glicerio Salvacion, from a decision, of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental,
finding him guilty of the crime of murder, with which he is
charged, and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with the
corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Pio Opema, jointly with Placido Hamoy—who, although separately accused of robbery with homicide, was tried
jointly with appellant—in the sum of P6,000 and to pay one
fourth of the costs.

It is not disputed that on November 28, 1958, at about
dusk, while Pio Opema and his wife, Cirila Richa, were in
their house in Macalibre, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental,
several masked men went up the premises and one of them shot
Opema, whereas the others dragged Cirila to a room and, after
tying her hands and threatening her with a dagger, ransacked
the cabinets and took and carried away the sum of P300, but,
before leaving, they went back to Opema, who was lying down,
wounded, on the floor, and fired at him several times, thereby killing him. Upon investigation subsequently conducted by
PC Sgt. Cleofe Jongko, one Isabelo Ometer revealed that, in
the morning of the occurrence, he saw appellant Glicerio Salvacion in the national highway in Macalibre, accompanied by
one, unknown to him (Ometer), who had a peculiar tatto or scar
on one of his hands. Ometer later took the witness stand and
identified, in the courtroom, Placido Hamoy as the person he
(Ometer) had seen with SaKacion on the aforesaid occasion.
Hamoy has a scar or tattoo on the back of his left hand.

In
the meantime, while Hamoy was playing madjong in Tudela, Misamis
Occidental, on December 9, 1958, Sgt. Jongko noticed said scar on
Hamoy’s hand. Accordingly, Jongko invited him to the PC Headquarters,
in Ozamis City, for an interview, during which Hamoy, at first,
protested innocence. However, by making him believe that one of those
who had participated in the commission of the crime adverted to above
had squealed on him, Jongko succeeded in breaking down the resistance
of Hamoy, who, thereupon, made a written confession (Exhibits A and
A-1, pp. 38-41, Record) to the effect that he and one Napoleon Adlaon
had been hired by appellant Salvacion to kill his father-in-law, Pio
Opema; that, on November 28, 1958, he (Hamoy) and Adlaon, together with
two (2) others, whose names were not given, waited for Opema near his
aforementioned house; that, soon after Opema’s arrival thereat, Adlaon
shot him; that, while one of their companions guarded Opema, who was
prostrate on the floor, the others brought his wife to the room and got
P200 and a pair of eyeglasses; and that as they were leaving the house,
they heard several shots fired by Adlaon inside the house.

Two (2)
days later, appellant Salvacion was picked up by the Constabulary. He,
likewise, pretended ignorance of the circumstances under which the
aforementioned crime had been committed. Upon being confronted with
Hamoy’s confession, Salvacion broke down and made a similar confession
(Exhibits B and B-1, pp. 42-50, Record), confirming that of Hamoy, and
stating that his (Salvacion’s) reason for inducing Hamoy and Adlaon to
kill Opema was that he had humiliated him, as well as taken a mistress
in the house in which he (Salvacion) and his wife lived, apart from
squandering his fortune on his aforementioned mistress and her
relatives. As a consequence, Salvacion was accused of murder and Hamoy
of robbery with homicide, with the result indicated above.

Appellant
denied having had any participation in the killing of Pio Opema.
Salvacion and Hamoy testified that their alleged confessions were made,
not by them, but by the Constabulary men who, through force, violence
and intimidation, compelled them to affix their signatures thereon.
Moreover, Hamoy would have the court believe that he could not have
taken part in the killing of Pio Opema in Macalibre, Lopez Jaena, on
November 28, 1958, because he was then allegedly confined in bed in
Tudela, undergoing medical treatment for anemia.

The
lower court, however, gave no credence to this pretense, and, we think,
correctly, for the same is refuted: (a) by the testimony of the then
Justice of the Peace of Ozamis City, before whom said confessions
(Exhibits A and B) were subscribed and sworn to by Hamoy and Salvacion,
on December 10 and 11, 1958; (b) by the firm hand with which their
respective signatures were obviously written; (c) by the profusion of
details with which said confessions, specially that of Salvacion, are
characterized; (d) by the fact that the truth of a good many of said
details was confirmed by Salvacion and Hamoy in the course of their
cross-examination by the prosecution; and (3) by the circumstance that,
although Hamoy and Salvacion were no longer under the custody of the
Constabulary since December 10 and 11, 1958, respectively, for they
were confined in the provincial jail immediately after their respective
confessions were subscribed and sworn to by them, they did not complain
about their alleged maltreatment or report the same either to any of
the officers or employees in said jail, or to any other person for that
matter, until they took the witness stand, over a year and a half later.

One factor should not be overlooked, in connection with
the duress allegedly used in securing the confessions Exhibits
A and B. Hamoy was interviewed by Sgt. Jongko on December 9,
1958, and the former subscribed and swore to his confession
the next day, December 10. The day following the latter,
Salvacion was picked up bythe authorities. That same day,
December 11, 1958, he subscribed and swore to his confession
Exhibit B. In other words, both—particularly, appellant
Salvacion—were under the custody of the Constabulary for a
very short period of time, thus minimizing the possibility
of effective use of duress.

Another important detail confirming the conspiracy between
Hamoy and Salvacion is that, after their arrest, Salvacion
wrote a letter to one Bonifacia Manayan stating that he (Salvacion) would pay for the meals of Hamoy while he was detained
in the provincial jail. Although Salvacion tried to explain
said letter by stating that Hamoy used to drive his truck before the institution of this case and that he had not paid
Hamoy for his aforementioned services, the artificial nature
of this explanation becomes apparent when we consider that
said services by Hamoy were rendered six (6) years before, or
sometime in 1952.

Needless to say, Hamoy’s alibi is disproved by the fact
that Isabelo Ometer saw him in Macalibre, Lopez Jaena, on the
very date of the occurrence and that Ometer had no possible
reason to falsely incriminate him or appellant Salvacion.

We
are satisfied, therefore, that appellant’s guilt has been established
beyond reasonable doubt. Although, in addition to the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation, the generic circumstance of
prize was present in the commission of the crime charged, the extreme
penalty cannot be meted out to appellant for lack of the number of
votes required therefor.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with the costs of this instance against appellant Glicerio
Salvacion. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.